Author: Mogens Larsen
Date: 11:37:39 07/19/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 19, 2000 at 14:02:00, Robert Hyatt wrote: >Not that I recall. First, I don't like single-cpu tests, for anything other >than what I use them for, namely debugging. If you insist on single-cpu tests, >then I still prefer native-mode ponder=on. Ponder=off actually is worse with >some programs. IE older chessmaster programs would use 100% of the cpu even >with ponder=off. Because of a keyboard input loop. So in a ponder=off match, >it would get roughly 75% of the total cpu cycles. Ponder=on at least makes >that 'equal' assuming the operating system is sane about process scheduling. There's quite a few if's involves. The chessmaster bug wouldn't be helped by ponder=on on one machine AFAIK. There's equal chances of screwing up cpu allocation whether it's ponder=on or off. Since I'm quite frequently testing programs under development without pondering implemented, I see no reason to divert from the native-mode of single cpu machines and use ponder=on. >Oddball conditions are ok, if you want to >know how programs do under oddball conditions. But to extrapolate from that to >normal conditions is a real stretch of the imagination... Noone is extrapolating anything, because data exists on both cases. Until now, the data suggests that the difference in strength between programs with ponder doesn't differ significantly with the results obtained using ponder=off. As I mentioned in my previous post, this correlation may only exist in a small spectrum, but who knows. Best wishes... Mogens
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.